1.

What, for Regan, is the fundamental basis upon which he objects to the use of
animals as means to human ends? How does this basis differ from Singer's
philosophical approach to animal ethics?

People use animals as their resources. But Singer believed that all animals must be given
equal weight in how much people should care for them. Regan said that the way animals
are treated are fundamentally wrong. The bigger issue is that they they exist for us but our
social political system makes us believe that animals are a resource because they cover up
the pain they have. Along with the deprivation. They are subjects of life and deserves
basic individual life.
2. Explain Regan's critique of the cruelty-kindness view.
If an animal is hurt who else is impacted on that view? Some people viewed it, in Regans
opinion, as the animals have pain therefore you have to care for them. Everything that is
considered an animal has experienced pain due to the biological system that they all have.
If you cant treat an animal kindly why treat a child that way? They both cannot sign for
themselves.
3. Explain Regan's cup analogy, which he uses to critique the utilitarian defense of
animals. How does Regan's notion of subject of a life differ philosophically from
Singer's use of the notion of subjective experience?
We are the cup and the liquid are our desires. The cup has no value without the liquid.
Conscious beings have more intrinsic value because they are experiencing life in general.
Regan assumes that animals are conscious of their surroundings and singer assumes the
opposite.
4. Explain Regan's argument in response (p. 23) to the claim that nonhuman animals have
inherent value, just less inherent value than humans. Do you find his argument to be
strong or weak? Explain.
He wrote that all animals have worth. Intelligence is not a good indicator to show the
separation between animals and species. A lion is much stronger than a human therefore
is it better? no because it has its own skill sets that allow it to be a lion, just as we have
our own to be humans.
5. Do you agree with Sagoff's argument that being in a moral community with nonhuman nature requires the expansion of the same moral rights to animals as we ascribe to
humans? Explain.

We want to give animals the same moral rights that humans have. Along with trees and
plants. They too have the right to exist. It is easy to expand these rights to
animals because we like them such as deer or raccoons sometimes.
6. Explain how Sagoff uses the idea of basic rights to argue that humans have an
unlimited obligation to protect all animals, domestic and wild, from harm. Do you agree
that this is the inevitable implication of the animal liberation/rights position? Explain.
We have to actually put forth an effort and not simply let nature do its thing. For example
the event that happened in Wisconsin were there were too many deer killing forests and
they had to be killed. If they weren't then there would be this terrible natural disaster.
Stepping forward may not always guarantee that the situation will be made better. What
does it even mean to protect animals if they do actually want to kill each others.